Since then, O’Hanlon in particular has advocated for increased military force in more countries than one can count. That’s not surprising: Brookings is funded in part by one of the Democratic Party’s favorite billionaires, Haim Saban, who is a dual citizen of the U.S. and Israel and once said of himself: “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.” Pollack advocated for the attack on Iraq while he was “Director of Research of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy.” Saban became the Democratic Party’s largest fundraiser — even paying $7 million for the new DNC building — and is now a very substantial funder of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. In exchange, she’s written a personal letter to him publicly “expressing her strong and unequivocal support for Israel in the face of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction movement.”

So the hawkish Brookings is the prism through which Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy worldview can be best understood. The think tank is filled with former advisers to both Bill and Hillary Clinton, and would certainly provide numerous top-level foreign policy officials in any Hillary Clinton administration. As she put it today at the start: “There are a lot of long-time friends and colleagues who perch here at Brookings.” And she proceeded to deliver exactly the speech one would expect, reminding everyone of just how militaristic and hawkish she is.

The context for her speech was the Iran Deal, which Clinton supports. It would be virtually impossible for her not to do so — there is no way anyone could win the Democratic nomination while opposing a key foreign policy legacy of the sitting Democratic president — but, regardless of the motives, she has the right position on that. But that deal is vehemently opposed by AIPAC and of grave concern to the hawkish foreign policy circles on which she has long depended, and so the core purpose of the speech was to assure those nervous precincts that, despite the Iran Deal support, she’s still the same aggressive, war-threatening, obsessively Israel-devoted, bellicose hawk they’ve grown to know and love.

To achieve that, Clinton repeatedly invoked the Netanyahu-cartoon image of Iran as a Grave and Evil Terrorist Menace. This was her formulation of the issue she seeks to address: “how to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and more broadly, how to protect ourselves and our allies from the full range of threats that Iran poses.” She even compared the country to the Supreme Villain of the Moment: “Iran, like ISIS, benefits from chaos and strife.”

Clinton proclaimed that she “too [is] deeply concerned about Iranian aggression and the need to confront it. It’s a ruthless, brutal regime that has the blood of Americans, many others and including its own people on its hands.” Even worse, she said, “Its political rallies resound with cries of ‘Death to America.’ Its leaders talk about wiping Israel off the face of the map, most recently just yesterday, and foment terror against it. There is absolutely no reason to trust Iran.” She repeated that claim several times for emphasis: “They vow to destroy Israel. And that’s worth saying again. They vow to destroy Israel.”

She vowed that in dealing with Iran, she will be tougher and more aggressive than Reagan was with the Soviet Union: “You remember President Reagan’s line about the Soviets: Trust but verify? My approach will be distrust and verify.” She also explicitly threatened Iran with war if they fail to comply: “I will not hesitate to take military action if Iran attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon, and I will set up my successor to be able to credibly make the same pledge.” She even depicted the Iran Deal as making a future war with Iran easier and more powerful:

Should it become necessary in the future having exhausted peaceful alternatives to turn to military force, we will have preserved and in some cases enhanced our capacity to act. And because we have proven our commitment to diplomacy first, the world will more likely join us.

As for Israel itself, Clinton eagerly promised to shower it with a long, expensive, and dangerous list of gifts. Here’s just a part of what that country can expect from the second President Clinton:

I will deepen America’s unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security, including our long standing tradition of guaranteeing Israel’s qualitative military edge. I’ll increase support for Israeli rocket and missile defenses and for intelligence sharing. I’ll sell Israel the most sophisticated fire aircraft ever developed. The F-35. We’ll work together to develop and implement better tunnel detection technology to prevent arms smuggling and kidnapping as well as the strongest possible missile defense system for Northern Israel, which has been subjected to Hezbollah’s attacks for years.

She promised she “will sustain a robust military presence in the [Persian Gulf] region, especially our air and naval forces.” She vowed to “increase security cooperation with our Gulf allies” — by which she means the despotic regimes in Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Qatar, among others. She swore she will crack down even further on Hezbollah: “It’s time to eliminate the false distinction that some still make between the supposed political and military wings. If you’re part of Hezbollah, you’re part of a terrorist organization, plain and simple.”

Then she took the ultimate pledge: “I would not support this agreement for one second if I thought it put Israel in greater danger.” So even if the deal would benefit the U.S., she would not support it “for one second” if it “put Israel in greater danger.” That’s an unusually blunt vow to subordinate the interests of the U.S. to that foreign nation.

But when it comes to gifts to Israel, that’s not all! Echoing the vow of several GOP candidates to call Netanyahu right away after being elected, Clinton promised: “I would invite the Israeli prime minister to the White House during my first month in office to talk about all of these issues and to set us on a course of close, frequent consultation right from the start, because we both rely on each other for support as partners, allies and friends.” She then addressed “the people of Israel,” telling them: “Let me say, you’ll never have to question whether we’re with you. The United States will always be with you.” For good measure, she heaped praise on “my friend Chuck Schumer,” who has led the battle to defeat the Iran Deal, gushing about what an “excellent leader in the Senate” he will make. What’s a little warmongering among friends?

Just as was true in her book, she implicitly criticized Obama — who boasts that he has bombed seven predominantly Muslim countries — of being insufficiently militaristic, imperialistic, and violent. She said she wanted more involvement in Syria from the start (though did not call for the U.S. to accept any of its refugees). In a clear rebuke to the current president, she decreed that any criticisms U.S. officials may utter of Israel should be done only in private (“in private and behind, you know, closed doors”), not in public, lest “it open[] the door to everybody else to delegitimize Israel to, you know, pile on in ways that are not good for the — the strength and stability, not just of Israel.” About Russia, she said, “I think we have not done enough” and put herself “in the category of people who wanted us to do more in response to the annexation of Crimea and the continuing destabilization of Ukraine.”

The speech wasn’t all heinous. As I indicated, she did advocate for the Iran Deal and criticized GOP candidates for vowing to tear it up. More impressively, she offered a rare but needed admission that much of the world’s extremism comes not from Iran but from the U.S.’s second most cherished ally in the region: “Much of the extremism in the world today is the direct result of policies and funding undertaken by the Saudi government and individuals. We would be foolish not to recognize that.” That tracks Tom Friedman’s column from this week in which he admitted that “the title greatest ‘purveyors of radical Islam’ does not belong to the Iranians. Not even close. That belongs to our putative ally Saudi Arabia.”

But overall, the picture that the stern Iraq and Libya war advocate painted of herself was as clear as it was unsurprising and alarming: She resides on the hawkish, militaristic end of the Democratic Party when it comes to most foreign policy questions. But the real significance is this: If Hillary Clinton is already this hawkish and war-threatening while trying to fend off Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Party primary while bolstering her liberal credentials, imagine what she’s going to be doing and saying about all of this once she’s the Democratic nominee running against a Republican in the general election and, even scarier, once she occupies the Oval Office and, as far as the U.S. military is concerned, assumes the title of Commander-in-Chief.

* * * * *

Two words that did not come out of Clinton’s mouth during the entire event: “Palestinians” (do they exist?) and “Libya” (that glorious war she supported that was going to be the inspiring template for future “humanitarian interventions” before it predictably destroyed that whole country).

We depend on the support of readers like you to help keep our nonprofit newsroom strong and independent. Join Us

Isn’t Israel currently under investigation for war crimes? The head secretary of the U.N. brutally condemned Israel for its repeat attacks on schools across Palestine. This is absurd timing and Hilary is basically hoping for Democrats that don’t have time to read not to read about what the U.N. has said about Israel and the overwhelming evidence of war crimes by Israel in the recent past. Hilary COULD be worse but its amazing how bad she is.

I hear lots of people defend the IDF slaughter of women and children. “Well Hamas used them for human shields” they repeat over and over. Even if that were true. How would that make it any less of crime? According to that logic if someone robs a bank. It would be okay to just blow up the whole bank to get him. Or if he hides behind the bank tellers. The cops can just waste the old gals to get a clear shot at the robber. I just shake my head. Disgusted

This is the real Clinton, the one who says she made a “mistake” in voting for war on Iraq. The blood thirsty, right wing hawk, whose own daughter never did military service, and like her parents, wanted to be so close to Wall St that she married one of the financial manipulators. THe whole family stinks, and the dynasty should have ended with Bill, and hopefully did.

What is most discouraging is that the so called smart Democrats will vote for her, and accuse the TeaTards of being ignorant and voting for bad people. The hypocrisy of this country is overwhelming, and depressing.

Clinton proclaimed that she “too [is] deeply concerned about Iranian aggression and the need to confront it. It’s a ruthless, brutal regime that has the blood of Americans, many others and including its own people on its hands.”

I guess she is in total denial about the brutality and ruthlessness of the American regime that has the innocent blood of Iraqi, Afghan, Pakistani, Libyan, Yemenese, Vietnamese, Laotian and Cambodian (not complete list) citizens on their hands, probably a lot more blood than the Iranians have spilled.

Yes, COMMENTS is not functioning correctly, as noted by feline16 and others. The link command line displays correctly but it only works from the bottom of the story. (true dat flag somewhere)
Also, the HTML to italicize the word ‘deepen’ within bold;
It No worky.

Warren D – you said: “That’s why people were supposed to make more of an issue of things sooner.”

Where have you been??? Quite a few of us really complained as soon as the new look was launched. Read the comments on Betsy Reed’s article about the new look. One major problem from the get-go was that stories didn’t open in their own tabs. Some folks have since managed to have that happen. I HAVE NOT.

And as far as the top link to comments not working, I wrote about it as soon as I noticed it. People have also written about what was going on with comments either being closed for no apparent reason or not opening at all. I think Tom C. responded to one person. Someone also wrote to one of the writers, who responded to her that HE didn’t know what the problem was. Other than THAT, the problems with comments are NOT being addressed. There is also NO real mechanism to report issues or – heaven forbid – actually get some technical help or advice.

Sadly, I really am getting the feeling that readers don’t mean so much to TI after all.

While Palin and Trump talked unicorns and winning, Clinton spoke to a think tank crowd about the need for the next president to deepen the United States’s commitment to Israel, sustain a robust military presence in the Middle East, expand sanctions against Iran for terrorism and build a coalition to counter Iranian influence

Clinton is described as “lucid” while giving “a thoughtful, measured address ” by Mr. Mak at the Daily Beast.
What is lucid about Hillary serving up the same old tired Israel-first bullshit?
I have a more positive image of North Korea than I do of Israel.

“She even compared the country to the Supreme Villain of the Moment: “Iran, like ISIS, benefits from chaos and strife.”” That’s called projection. That’s also called perversity and corruption because it’s conscious and deliberate. Enabling mass murderers and terrorists (the military/intelligence complexes in the US and Israel and countries of allies), while claiming that you’re doing the opposite, makes you corrupt, in my view.

No. to borrow the words of another…’Most of our political reality now is almost beyond commentary. Its evident evil stands as stark as a naked body unearthed from a mass grave. Yet millions of people will be heatedly engaged in the coming months by the “struggle” over who will temporarily preside over the stinking slaughterhouse of our militarist empire. The mass hallucination — of a rational political system, of our national goodness, of the chance of “reform” if only the right murderer gets into power — will go on.”

“If Hillary Clinton is already this hawkish and war-threatening while trying to fend off Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Party primary while bolstering her liberal credentials, imagine what she’s going to be doing and saying about all of this once she’s the Democratic nominee”

Greenwald sounds like a little bitch whining about that bully at school.

Clinton has put her ideas on the table, the voters will decide.
About you Greenwald? You are not just a journalist. You are an “activist journalist”. So what is your solution for Syria, for ISIL? Do you have any offers? Or you are just good at whining like a little bitch.

“that glorious war she supported that was going to be the inspiring template for future “humanitarian interventions” before it predictably destroyed that whole country).”

Such a meaningless statement. Are you that ignorant in foreign conflicts or you just expect your readers to be the most stupid individuals ever?
So, Western and Middle Eastern powers destroyed Libya by toppling Gaddafi? Deep rooted tribal conflicts are not the cause of Libya’s destruction?

A few predictions from a “scholar” regarding US intervention in Kosovo:

“The airstrikes against Serbia are no more likely to succeed in their objective than did those in Southeast Asia. ”

“And should US troops ever be deployed in Kosovo as peacekeepers, they would almost certainly be targets of revenge-seeking Serb terrorists (US troops in neighboring Bosnia will similarly be at risk).”

“It’s not like it take a rocket scientist to see that your are just your typical fascist prick. ”

Really? I thought it takes an analysis of somebody’s point of view to conclude whether or not he/she is an idiot. As matter of fact, those who are incapable of performing that analysis (you) are logically regarded as the idiots.

So, Western and Middle Eastern powers destroyed Libya by toppling Gaddafi? Deep rooted tribal conflicts are not the cause of Libya’s destruction?

Cause and effect is more than self-evident in the case of Libya and Iraq, unless you’re a complete moron in denial. After destabilization, of course sectarian conflicts emerge, but that’s bound to happen anywhere.

I have consistently called you an ignorant not for personal reason, but because of your weird statements. Libya and Iraq are two different cases:
Libya:
The tribal violence (pro vs against Gaddafi ) started before the international intervention. The UN backed a military intervention in Libya to stop Gaddafi’s obvious plan to massacre other tribes regardless they were fighters or not. Of course if you only read the Intercept, then you will not know this FACT because Greenwald will never mention it.
You are an ignorant. You are blaming the US for a tribal conflict that started before Western and Middle Eastern powers even intervened. That means you have absolutely no understanding of Libya’s society and you just swallowing whatever BS Greenwald gives you. He is Greenwald, so he must be right!

The tribal violence (pro vs against Gaddafi ) started before the international intervention.

What is this based on? There was a popular uprising and a rebellion against the government. Then the US and NATO took advantage in order to get rid of the head of an independent nationalist government, and left Libya destabilized. The Arab Spring essentially died at the same time, which is probably an intended side-effect, as client states like Bahrain were in danger as well. True sectarian fighting (completely different to fighting between the government and the people plus some opportunistic rebels) is something that emerged afterwards.

Do some research (which I doubt you can do since you depend on Greenwald to educate you) and find out who were the main tribes in Benghazi, how long they had issues with Gaddafi’s tribes, what were the other tribes’ positions. That is not my job to educate you specially when you choose to ignore obvious information because your whole point of view is..TI says it, then it must be true.

Gaddafi’s obvious plan to massacre other tribes? You know this was his plan? Or it is obvious. Okay. Wonder who armed the tribal forces that assisted in killing Gaddafi? Why did they arm them? Could it be the brent sweet crude in Libya? Or was Gaddafi just a bad guy? That was probably it. I guess Saudi’s will be next. Since they sentenced a blogger to 1000 lashes the other day. And the US gets them bad guys.

Hay, Mona’s missing. Just noticed the big hole in all the arguments was absent, teacher. Tell her to imagine she’s in a silo and the reverb in not to die for. Just sing her heart out and she’ll be back. I have faith this is just a suppression attack.

Faith’s only reward is treachery and deceit, contrary to the song, I think, George.

If she is on vacation, I hope Mona knows that the sun’s damaging effects are limitless even on foreign soil while sipping a caiparinha or two. I hope she wears sunscreen. When’s Flag Day this year btw?

I think someone wrecked that lady’s voice and hearing a long time ago, so it might be irony in action to ask Mona to sing, silo or no. Whatcha gonna give her, a hug? Deaf people probably don’t get much out of opera either, Penzance.

I hope Glenn never left his laptop on a bed within the line of sight of any greenage, BTW.

Anyone who votes for any Democrat or any Republican is voting for more of the same. If Hillary Clinton sounds like a tired old hack, it is because they are all old tired hacks, and more although it is not considered politic to say so, criminals.

There is a frequent error which is made equating liberalism with New Dealism. They have very little in common. Liberalism in its Wilsonian sense is pro-corporate, pro-capitalist, pro-interventionist, elitist and paternalistic toward us rubes, and virulently anti-populist. New Dealism was adopted by liberals out of sheer desperation. It incorporated just enough of socialism and populism to keep the capitalist model intact, and liberals began backtracking on it as early as 1936 as soon as the immediate political although not economic threat was past. Johnson, and for that matter, Nixon, were the last of the Presidential New Dealers in American politics, and theirs was a weird amalgam of New Deal and older liberal elements.

Bill, Hillary, Obama, and the Democrats are not called neoliberal for nothing. They represent the extirpation of New Dealism from the Democratic party and its unabashed return to its pre-Depression Wilsonian origins.

So when Hillary embraces Wall Street or she, Warren, and Sanders embrace Israel and the general love of war that is American foreign policy, that is liberalism, what it is and what it always has been. The only difference I can see between Sanders and Clinton is that Sanders can fake progressivism while Clinton just looks embarrassingly awkward (much like Nixon) even trying to invoke a progressive position.

I wasn’t sure about Sanders authenticity at first. But the fact that corporate media has ridiculed, and undermined him with article after article. That says “that Sanders sure has a following but no way can he win though”. After Sanders surging in the polls. The DNC freaking out at the thought of him winning the nomination. Dragging out old backup Biden. Even testing to see if his sons death would get him sympathy votes. Makes me think there is a big difference between Hillary and Sanders.

Good report, Glenn; and thank you for it. The following is not politically correct to say, but I’m sorry: This is what you get when you combine a religiously zealous culture with a militaristic one – I call it Christo-fascism, and that’s what pervades our society, folks.

On Hillary, I loved her in the ’90s. But, starting somewhere around the time she conned her way into the U.S. Senate, she has gone so way Washington I can’t even recognize her politically anymore. For example, in my view, yes, her position on the Iran nuclear deal is news, but the bigger news is how long she waited to state her position – until it was very politically safe and she knew a congressional disapproval measure was veto-proof. Then she runs to her warmongering benefactors to reassure them it’s all good – she’s still with them. Disgusting. Feel the Bernie.

Religion probably plays a role as a means of obtaining support from the masses. There’s a reason a lot of Americans vote against their self-interest, and it’s probably because they identify with Republicans on religious views. But that’s as far as it goes.

The real reason for imperialism and warmongering, in my view, is capitalism. Corporations have global interests and also political power.

And Dixon is probably right if not in motivation (on Sanders part) but on ultimate effect and outcome.

And that’s why the “lesser of evils” calculus is so short-sighted. If the “left” wants to actually have meaningful policy influence over the long-term, it’s going to have to engage in a little discipline and demonstrate that their votes aren’t a given–even if that means the GOP wins. At least the GOP openly and transparently owns the consequences of their policy preferences. That’s the only logical path I ever see bearing fruit in America for the left. Either spend decades changing the law and building a viable 3rd party, or engage in a full on insurgency against the Democratic Party status quo. Demonstrate that if the Democratic Party wants to actual ever wield any power again whatsoever, it will be in pursuit of an actual “liberal” agenda–and that doesn’t just mean “socially” but most importantly economically and as a function of foreign policy.

I start with working cycle over cycle and do whatever it takes to pick off the likes of Chuck Schumer and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

And what’s left of unions in this nation need to decouple from their assumed affiliation and support of the nominal Democratic Party and be willing to demand that their own union-selected candidates be permitted to run as Democrats otherwise no support from unions for the Democratic Party. And if the party doesn’t like that, then what’s left of unions should be willing to join with the base and willing independents to do the hard decades long work of building a new party or engaging in a no-holds barred insurgency for the leadership of the Democratic Party.

“Either spend decades changing the law and building a viable 3rd party, or engage in a full on insurgency against the Democratic Party status quo. “

Here we go again with another cycle of despairing the rigged American electoral system.

I’m still a little fuzzy on America’s non parliamentary system but It has seemed to me that to ask left wing volunteers to donate money, time only to see their preferred left wing candidates either be absorbed into a right wing campaign inside the Democratic party or as in the case of Green and others, have the left wing alternatives be barred from getting on the ballot, barred from the presidential debates, unable to afford to buy any reasonable level of media visibility, is….crazy.

What is the rational thing to do inside such a rat maze?

In the UK, if Corbyn wins, leftists can vote Labour. If he loses, they can vote some other left wing party. Comparatively simple, compared to America’s predicament, I would say.

But Americans? Given that there are incidental, local, contours that will determine choices, from the 30 000 feet level if I wanted to push national American politics towards something that I would consider sane, changing the system first, the money in politics, the outlawing of competitor parties, the barriers to voting…basically the system is so screwed that radical solutions are the only practical ones that will get America out of the maze.

But there is no sign yet that now is the time. But at some point there will be a sort of primal scream, a “our votes matter” movement of some sort that can’t be ignored. It might be closer than we think.

I know most here will disagree, but in the proto-fascist rantings of Trump, I find the most hope. Clinton is, and will be …Clinton. Bush will be a Bush. But Trump as president has the potential to do so much damage to the system, it may be weakened enough for the shockingly few Americans that seem to care about democracy to seize the opportunity to introduce some responsiveness, equality, responsibility to the US governing system.

I see the election choices placed on a conservative-progressive axis. The Republicans are say a 3. The Democrats are a 4. What if I want the government to be a 5?

In the UK, if Labour stays with 4, and the people want 5, guess what? The votes go to the parties that give them 5. If Labour wants them back, they must offer what the people want.

In the US, there simply are no realistic options at the federal level for anyone wanting more progressiveness than the Democrats. So rationally, why would Clinton, or any Democrat candidate bother courting progressives. The only real rival to the Democrats is the Republicans, and to take votes from them, means moving right.

The map of parties in America is like a map of a flat Earth, if you head to the left, the world simply ends at the border of Democrat-land.

What if the sheep dog wins? The unfairness the Establisment media and DNC has shown Sanders. Will not bring progressives back to the folds. Dixon is just frustrated of the inability of his Green Party, to gain any meaningful traction in the two party system. I feel bad for him.

I find the most telling issue the refusal to accept Syrian, Afghan, Iraqi or Libyan refugees – given our strong role in destroying all 4 countries. (Not Yemen either.) We did accept many Somali refugees – but then we didn’t have such a direct role there, just using various warlords and the Ethiopian army as our cat’s paw.

The refugee question is part of blow-back. Like Mexico, we need to totally change our police in the Middle East to make it a livable place. No one wants to leave their homelands unless they have to.

That’s a big IF. For something like that to happen, the newspapers would need to have not prejudged the race. And also, there would have to be mass media discussion of the issues. So there’s two reasons right there why Sanders can’t win. Plus, you know, the Democratic party won’t let him win, so there’s that as well.

On a completely unrelated note, I hear the Democrats are looking into why so few people see any value in the traditional electoral process, any ideas???

Here’s my take: The Times has not ignored Mr. Sanders’s campaign by any means, but it also hasn’t always taken it very seriously. The tone of some stories does seem regrettably dismissive, even mocking at times. Some of it is focused on the candidate’s age, appearance and style rather than what he has to say.

I’m far less optimistic about Sanders winning than say Corbyn in the UK. Still in the UK, the news is filled with thousands of ordinary people flocking to his live events.

In America, I don’t know what crowds Sanders is pulling, but it isn’t making the major news shows, Trump is. And no matter how many supporters and volunteers he has, overnight Clinton could, with one advert campaign, peg Sanders as a paedophile Kenyan tax dodger in the minds of most viewers.

But I’m guessing she won’t need to, Sanders has run so many times, he’s a known, and dismissed commodity already.

But I hope he wins. Even if it is to see his own party quickly revolt and replace him under some obscure rule they only just made up.

Clearly you know absolutely nothing about his record on Iraq or countless other foreign policy issues of the last 20 years. Let me recommend a site called ‘Wikipedia’ – maybe you’ve heard of it ? – as maybe a good place to start.

And I suspect you’re a spoiler theorist, equating any and all opposition to a Democratic Party candidate to Fox (and by extension the GOP). Several progressive websites, such as Counterpunch and Truthdig, have had articles questioning Bernie Sanders’ foreign policy. The Truthdig article below has Sanders saying that he would limit the drone program, but not get rid of it. We’ve heard stuff like this before in the last six years of Obama, which is why quite a few people on the left are somewhat skeptical of Sanders, especially since he’s pretty much joined the Democratic Party.

A point Chris Hedges made, which is making the rounds, is that imperialism needs to be defeated before the issue of inequality can be truly addressed. But maybe that’s backwards. Imperialism will always exist as long as the most powerful country on Earth has a greedy business class that runs the political system. So maybe the priority should be money in politics. I’d go further: Even if you enact laws to get money out of politics, the business class will find ways around that. The structure of corporations need to change, such that not only a small group of rich/powerful people make all the decisions.

The law was also opposed by the National Press Photographers Association. Presumably because it would hamper the paparazzis’ attempts to get overhead naked shots of celebrities.

If Americans were sane, I’d say they’d change their mind after a few airliners are downed after collisions with toy drones, or after a few fly through car windshields on the motorway. But we are talking America, I’m sure there are plenty of lobbyist lawyers ready to make this a fourth amendment issue or something. “out of my cold dead hands!”

Kerry announced Tuesday that he was bringing Jacobs back on board to improve state’s responsiveness to Freedom of Information Act requests and to ensure that records of U.S. diplomacy are being properly preserved — two weaknesses at the agency highlighted by the recent furor over Hillary Clinton’s use of her private email account for official business.’

As US allies Australia and Canada bomb Syria, US media upset at Russian “advisors” in the country.

Russia’s foreign ministry has complained of a “strange hysteria” over Moscow’s actions in Syria, as western countries expressed concerns over apparent preparations for military intervention.

Foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that “Russia has never made a secret of its military-technical cooperation with Syria” and confirmed that “Russian military specialists are in Syria to help them master the weapons being supplied”. She said there was nothing out of the ordinary about their presence.

There appear to be key two arguments the Australian government could rely on to defend the bombings. The first justification is the notion of the collective self-defence of Iraq. This relates to a longstanding international legal principle that would permit Australia to intervene, and is what Brandis strongly alluded to in his comments about the strikes.

It’s problematic, though, because a number of significant international law cases have outlined that it can only be relied on for the defence of one state against another state – and Isis is not considered to be a state, at least not one recognised in law.

Professor of international law at Sydney University, Ben Saul, said: “It’s clear that Iraq is under armed attack by Isis, so it has a right of self-defence against them in its own territory, it’s entitled to make requests of foreign powers to assist it, but why it’s problematic is that the conventional view is that you can only use self-defence when it is by a state force.”

There has been some dispute over this application though, and Saul said the position in international law was now in flux. After the September 11 attacks, the UN security council endorsed the US action in Afghanistan in response to the terrorist attacks. It expressly recognised the US’s right to individual self-defence in response to acts of terrorism.
The second justification Australia may rely on is that they are exercising self-defence individually against Isis. This is one of the arguments that may have been relied on by the United Kingdom government over the drone strike on two British nationals announced earlier this week. Saul said while this could also potentially be relied upon, it could only be invoked in very particular circumstances where there was a specific threat against Australia.

Neither justification seems entirely clear. Writing in the Conversation, Kevin Boreham, a lecturer in international law at Australian National University, described Australia’s potential air missions as “a legal grey area.”

When the world leaders, those that established the UN, international law, The US among them, essentially use their advisers as mob lawyers, to allow them to attack wherever they want…there will be many grey areas.

Russia’s allies, if they felt the need to, could borrow Australia’s ever so logical arguments, attack the Middle East bases that Australia flies out of, or Australia itself. In…”self defence”. Any paid lawyer can make any argument. But there’s the legal principle …I call it the “laugh test”. Look up Australia on a map. And then explain to me how joining a civil war in Syria is “self defence”. And when millions flee the wars, the Iraq war, the bombing of Libya, the attacks on Syria, we laugh again as US allies talk about how they are scared the victims of war might attack the West if they are allowed in as refugees.

The Australian government drew upon the U S legal justification of collective self defence.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_by_states
The legal justification for the bombing of Syria is bullshit.
Collective self defence is bullshit.
I live in Australia and the funny thing is everyone I know thinks this bombing is bullshit.
They want Assad, dead like Gaddafi and they care not how many millions it hurts in doing so.
Israel foreign policy dictating to the whole world.
And the bullshit gets heaped on in bucket loads.

Basically, the US and NATO have destroyed and destabilized a number of Middle East countries — the ones whose governments were closed off to them. This has resulted in a refugee crisis, and everyone with any sense can see that. Now we’re told Russia is the country that is going to destabilize the Middle East if it sends troops to Syria. The temerity and arrogance of imperialists has to be seen to be believed.

“Now we’re told Russia is the country that is going to destabilize the Middle East if it sends troops to Syria.”

Syria is under immense pressure. The Iraq war opened up a wide area for guerilla groups to attack Turkey, Syria, Jordan and Iran.

Syria is a long standing Russian client state. Russia values its clients just as much as America does. Russia will do what it can to stabilize the situation. The safe bet right now is for them to stick with Assad, his ruling group, do what they can to foster a political solution. But until then, Russia doesn’t want ISIS, or any of the other groups taking over. And that means sending more, better weapons to the Syrian government.

Here’s another one of the tip of the iceberg moments that happen to Blacks in America every day, top athlete assaulted by police in New York. He’s just standing there, is tackled, handcuffed by five officers until they realize he isn’t the correct Black man.

“You’d think they could say, ‘Hey, we want to talk to you. We are looking into something. I was just standing there. I wasn’t running. It’s not even close [to appropriate]. It’s blatantly unnecessary. You would think at some point they would get the memo that this isn’t OK, but it seems that there’s no stopping it.”

and yes, the Intercept’s comment button is broken, and after posting a comment, the formatting screws up, everything shifts to the left.

Hillary Clinton on her decision to privately control her work-related emails at the State Department: I’m not a criminal, I’m just incompetent and stupid so… please vote for me as your country’s president.

Seriously, Clinton’s Wife vs. Trump facing each other and one eventually becoming the Prez of the United Sates? Doesn’t get much funnier than that.

And, to support their unshakable support for the Jewish State, both candidates should promise to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem and start a government-funded program of Affirmative Action to ensure that more Zionists make it into the US House and Senate because they are underrepresented now. They must also pledge to rename the United States “Circus Maximus” with the Prez title changed to “Clown in Chief”. They must also promote a Constitutional Amendment mandating (MANdating? it’s a sexist word) that Clown in Chiefs (formerly known as Presidents) wear clown costumes and makeup at all official functions. That should take care of everything.

“Hillary Clinton on her decision to privately control her work-related emails at the State Department:”

I don’t understand why you are still harping on this, Clintion broke the law on the handling of classified government documents, she apologized, move on. You don’t see the government she was a part of trying to make a federal case out of such things. It’s time to look forward.

Russia’s first 5G fighter has showed off in full its ultra-maneuverability at an international air show near Moscow. In 2016 the Russian Air Force will get ready to put the first production models of the stealth fighter jet into service.

Well, of course. Besides, the measly $3 billion a year in military aid we give Israel won’t even begin to pay for this flying gold brick, even if they sell the technology and the F-35’s computer code to China.

Just when I thought the site couldn’t get any worse, it did. Now the links that supposedly take you to the comments section for the story (the link directly ABOVE the story) are NOT working. And articles STILL do not open in their own tabs, at least I have NEVER been able to get them to do so.

It is making the site a real pain (for lack of a better word) to use. And there never seems to be any word on this or any sign that anyone is working to make this better.

I do appreciate the stories, but I am really getting tired of a site that is increasingly less friendly to use.

No, Markus, the site has become increasingly UNFRIENDLY recently. See Coram’s post below and also Pedinska’s comment. I’m not alone, and I really don’t think it’s my browser or my computer, especially when Coram is experiencing the same problem.

In addition to all of the above (for me as well), after posting a comment I am still getting unceremoniously dumped back up at the top of the article and have to scroll back down to try to find where I left off reading when I made my comment.

I am increasingly finding reading the comments to be an exercise in frustration that I no longer wish to find (excessive) time to pursue. And that’s a damn shame because ever since I’ve been reading Glenn (2005 at UT) I’ve found his commenters to be, on balance, incredibly informed sources of additional extremely educational information that always built and expanded on the foundation of his topic du jour in ways that added exponential value.

I am willing to more than entertain the possibility that my aging machine (2009 MAC, ala le suave donger), and it’s barely computer competent owner, bear some of the responsibility, but that doesn’t explain the lack of comprehensive commenting guidelines, nor a mechanism for readers to provide site feedback and/or for the TI tinkerers to provide information to readers regarding updates to functionality, something that really should have been supplied by now.

Apologies for getting all ‘spleeny’ here. There are just some days when the little things add up to a bit more than an internet speed bump/pothole and one has to start wondering about bygone promises to fix such things, etc, and so on, whatever. Now I need to go indulge in some tomato/beet therapy. :-s

That’s exactly what I’m talking about, Coram. It’s extremely frustrating since if you now want to check for new comments on a story you read previously, you have to scroll to find the BOTTOM comment button and if you are not extra careful, you end up 3 or 4 stories BELOW where you want to be. Then it’s scroll back up, etc.

And Pedinska, I am also getting a bit frustrated with the comments now. First comments are closed or not even opened with nO explanation. The silence of TI and lack of a good mechanism for us to get help or even report technical issues doesn’t speak well for TI, IMO.

Right clicking and opening in new tab still just gets me a long scroll of stories. Since the new system I have NEVER been able to get a story to open in its own tab. I have a pc (not a laptop nor smartphone…).

I am no fan of Fox News, but Watters segment (and the others he has done, especially check out the ones from this past Labor Day on Hillary Clinton), but he does point out the very serious problem we all have of the American citizens either not paying attention at all to current events, or of not really giving a shit what is happening. These people will be VOTING next November!

Women will be voting for Hillary Clinton in droves (if she hasn’t already dropped out due to an indictment etc. over her email fiasco/quagmire), simply because she is a woman! Duh! Conflict resolution Hillary! Conflict resolution!

If any of us took the time to go to our local DMV’s (I think this is a good polling place as EVERYBODY must go to the DMV for a new license update, registration etc.), and if we asked the first 100 women who would talk to us if they would be voting for Hillary, I fear that most women would be voting for her simply because she is of the female persuasion. They have bought into the “we need to have our first female president! It is time!”.

Never mind that NONE of them will understand Hillary’s twisted history in support of the apartheid/international war criminal State of Israel. They won’t know that she and her sycophant underling, Victoria Nuland, orchestrated the coup in Ukraine. They will have no knowledge of Hillary referring to Putin as “Hitler”. They will not know that the government in Kiev right now is ruled by the corrupted Nazi-loving “Right Sector”.

They would not even be able to find Ukraine on a freakin’ map!

Hillary Clinton singularly championed the over-throw of Qaddafi, whose Libya was the great hope of Africa! He, with his “nutty” billion dollar irrigation project brought farms to Libyans who were willing to do the work to grow crops, he brought health care to all his citizens and housing with the nationalization of the countries oil revenues, he brought education to ALL citizens, including women and he was seeking to join all of Africa into the “United States of Africa” prior to his overthrow and assassination with Hillary Clinton as the lead cheer leader.

Hillary Clinton, who voted to bring “Shock and Awe” to Iraq for their “weapons of mass destruction”, should be blamed for the disintegration of that nation, the millions who have died and been displaced, the thousands of U.S. military service members who have died and been maimed (and who still cannot find the health care they need!).

Hillary Clinton is EVIL.

And all this is not to mention her undying love and support for the apartheid State of Israel and their continued “FU” to the scores of U.N. resolutions against them regarding their illegal occupation and oppression of the Palestinians.

Hillary Clinton is PURE EVIL and should be indicted for war crimes. Never mind her State Department email imbroglio.

Hillary Clinton and her EVIL supporter Haim Saban and her “good friend” Bibi need to have their collective noses cut off. And NOW.

I go to sleep every night praying for her to be indicted. I awaken each morning and go to Drudge to await the headline, “INDICTED!”

I was with you all the way–until you mentioned that you go to sleep praying every night and then go to Drudge in the morning. Neither of these activities is productive or enlightening in any way.

Unless you are reading Drudge to discover why your former favorite uncle is now totally deranged, there is never any reason to read that trash. Nor does praying do anything more than to focus your thoughts. If you believe that some entity other than yourself is listening, it is time for a major reassessment of your priorities.

I actually do think it is time for a female president, but obviously not Hillary Clinton. You’re right about most voters being rather simple-minded when it comes to deciding who to vote for; if our country were more democratic and just, and voters more educated and courageous, it would be Jill Stein of the Green Party, not Hillary Clinton, that would have the best chance of becoming our nation’s first female president.

Does she think that by speaking so much of ill about Iranian regime (by including it enough to be barbaric, to have blood of own citizens on its hand) the Iranians would support her? Nowhere the citizens of country will tolerate the outsiders (who are declared enemies) to talk nonsense about their own country or its leadership no matter how brutal it is! That part I guess, Hilary and people like her have failed to understand.

Hilary like people supported all vicious dictators of my country (Pakistan) including support for most brutal dictator Gen. Zia Ul Haq (who executed first democratically elected popular Prime Minister of Pakistan ‘Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’). Americans called him an ally, and on several occasions, invited him to the White House. Gen Zia was responsible for cracking down on peaceful democracy activists (killing several peaceful activists in Sindh province of Pakistan) – he even helped radicalize the country and create Taliban, just to benefit America in driving out the Soviets.

So, does the same Americans in the White House believe that all Pakistani people will give a darn about Americans when they talk about Osama found from Pakistan…the same country that invited a brutal dictator to the US and romanced with him here in Pakistan, while he was busying torturing peaceful people and introducing radical religious pattern to people of Pakistan?

Maybe the grand Khameini ayatolla isn’t far off the mark when he says that the State of Israel will no longer exist in 25 years.

This does not necessarily mean that Iran will need to develop a nuclear weapon to lob into Tel Aviv.

If he is smart (and I’ll bet Iran is), they will take this opportunity to NOT develop a nuclear arsenal and they will let the State of Israel implode into itself.

Right now, the entire planet is aligned against Israel (except for the United States, Palau and Micronesia).

Give Israel enough time and the ENTIRE world will unite against them! (Including the United States!).

Israel will implode of it’s own machinations. The constant taking of occupied territories by the settlers (illegal) and on and on. Another “mowing of the lawn” and another against the occupied Palestinians and Israel will become the international pariah they are. The entire world, even the United States, will not be able to deny Israel’s GENOCIDE against the Palestinians.

I think the Grand Ayatollah is onto something. Just sit back, follow the “treaty” and let Israel dissolve into the State it deserves to be.

Clinton proclaimed that she “too [is] deeply concerned about Iranian aggression and the need to confront it. It’s a ruthless, brutal regime that has the blood of Americans, many others and including its own people on its hands.” Even worse, she said, “Its political rallies resound with cries of ‘Death to America.’ Its leaders talk about wiping Israel off the face of the map, most recently just yesterday, and foment terror against it. There is absolutely no reason to trust Iran.”

Azerbaijan is still Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan hasn’t been anschlussed and Turkey hasn’t been threatened for its treatment of people of Persian heritage.

Yet Clinton and others — listen to the reborn neocons’ fundamentalist fervor at today’s war rally in Washington — paint Iran as the rebirth of Hitler and the Holocaust. Cheney even said something like “it took German years to kill six million jews but it will take Iran a day … ” (something like that. I couldn’t find the reference on google.)

If anyone wonders why Clinton is losing, it isn’t because of emails. It’s because she’s a “centrist” Democrat who takes Wall Street money while lecturing on the evils of money in politics; who supports the Iran deal while making incendiary statements about Iran; who claims to be an alternative to Republicans while adopting standard Republican policies (e.g., corporate medicine.)

No sentient being — say an alien from another planet — can look at the US military activities of the last fifteen years (or since 1940) and conclude that Iran is an aggressor nation while the US defends peace. If they have psychologists on that planet they’d say it’s a clear case of “motivated” projection — the projection of ones own worst traits upon others … for which rewards follow (quelle suprise!) from those self-serving projections.

Every ‘effin’ time I encounter: [Iran’s] is a ruthless, brutal regime that has the blood of Americans, many others and including its own people on its hands. I think of this:

Iran Air Flight 655 was an Iran Air civilian passenger flight from Tehran to Dubai. On 3 July 1988, the aircraft operating this route was shot down by the United States Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes under the command of William C. Rogers III. The incident took place in Iranian airspace, over Iran’s territorial waters in the Persian Gulf, and on the flight’s usual flight path. The aircraft, an Airbus A300 B2-203, was destroyed by SM-2MR surface-to-air missiles fired from Vincennes. All 290 on board, including 66 children and 16 crew, died.

Really. Let’s talk about who has blood dripping from their hands. Let’s just…not ignore the three fingers pointing back at ourselves.

Really. Let’s talk about who has blood dripping from their hands. Let’s just…not ignore the three fingers pointing back at ourselves.

Exactly.

I remember the US shooting down the civilian airliner. I also remember the coup that the CIA acknowledged as their doing. I remember Stuxnet.

Meanwhile the US forgets:

And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed – if all records told the same tale – then the lie passed into history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.” And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. “Reality control,” they called it: in Newspeak, “doublethink.(1984)

There will be people who vote for her, regardless. I will not be among them.

There are people who will say she doesn’t really mean what she says. I will not be among them.

There are people who will argue But, SCOTUS! I will not be such a person.

There are those who will hold their nose choosing a slow descent into hell, imagining that someday *someone* will pull the brake lever if given enough time. I no longer harbor such fantasies.

There is – at this point – Not. One. Thing. Hillary, her supporters, surrogates, or proxies could say, promise, or do that would convince me – swing state, or no – to vote for her. The incentive doesn’t exist.

I’m with you. I’m all for solidarity in most things. I think it gives the little people what political/economic power they have. But I’m all done voting on some “lesser/same evils” calculus team Democrat “at least we’re not as overtly bat shit insane and selling you out as fast as Republicans” logic. I think it is short-term thinking and makes long-term change less likely. I think it disrupts the necessary “party” discipline that must take place as a function of core fundamental “liberal” issues.

I also think that if the right to vote means you can’t vote your conscience for what you actually want rather than what you fear, then the “right” to vote is basically worthless and a sham. It becomes easily manipulated by the relatively more powerful to become “you have the right to vote for anybody we say you can vote for so long as those somebodies are sufficiently cabined within a narrow range of policies and behaviors we pre-approve of.” And we the people are never as a matter of logic or game theory ever going to get what we want policy-wise via voting. It just won’t happen in my opinion. Any change will have to be much more external and ugly.

So bottom line is I won’t be voting for someone like Hillary Clinton, or Joe Biden, and likely not Martin O’Malley, and possibly not even Bernie Sanders if he doesn’t continue to evolve and make his positions absolutely clear on certain other very important issues. So far, and throughout his career, he has generally been on the correct side of issues. But I think he or somebody needs to come out all the way, and create the space for debate (in some ways the way Ron Paul did even though I fundamentally disagree with Ron Paul’s “why” and almost every other thing his stunted worldview stands for) and directly address this ridiculous myth that America’s military is about “keeping us safe”. An American military has it’s place. It should be in defense of our lands from imminent or ongoing attack, as a mutual defense treaty partner, as a facilitator of true humanitarian aid, as a contributor to some as yet to be created and/or effective international peacekeeping/policing force for those nations unable or unwilling to provide certain services to themselves.

But only Russia and China even have that potential or theoretical capacity in any reality based scenario to be a “threat” to us, and neither would have the will or foolishness to try. So that leaves a new truly democratic conversation about what is really in America’s best “security and economic interests” long-term. Otherwise we are going to continue to be a nation dominated by a metastasizing cancer (deep state, MIC, whatever you want to call it). But if it isn’t treated appropriately, and soon, I don’t see how we meaningfully address our domestic issues–ever. It is and has been causing the domestic impoverishment of this nation and perpetuating a failed domestic economic status quo for 45 years. And it has to be stopped. And that starts with Americans being able to have an honest non-hyper nationalistic discussion without half of America trying to shout down the other half with “love it or leave it” or cries of treason because some of us suggest there might be another way, or that “security” maybe means something other than a willingness to stomp our military all around the globe in service of our leader’s nebulous and never defined (if not secret) “interests”.

There is – at this point – Not. One. Thing. Hillary, her supporters, surrogates, or proxies could say, promise, or do that would convince me – swing state, or no – to vote for her. The incentive doesn’t exist.

Yeah, this Ohio voter will have to be burned at a stake first and even then I’ll let my fingers crisp to ashes. I might vote in the primary just to give Bernie a tiny nudge – and to flip my even tinier middle finger at her and all she and the money machines behind her stand for – but I’m with Ron below in noting that Sanders is vanishingly qualified on a foreign policy front to garner my vote in the finals. And, however little it might mean to actually cast a vote, someone somewhere will be seeing that an increasing number of us are not falling for the petrified bullshit they are serving up and calling caviar. That vote, if I cast it, will belong to Jill Stein – or some other candidate – so I can continue to tolerate my own conscience and throw one more tiny bird at these fuckers who think they own us.

Saudi Arabia does nothing in the region wo the explicit permission of US and our master,Israel.But you can bet they will be a fall guy,before the Zionists will be.
What an evil woman,The MSM loves her.Expect more non democracy for America.
And Trump commits seppeku.What a maroon,allying himself with the crazies.
I wanna vote for Alfalfa.

Apologies for going off-topic but I think this is something readers might be interested in knowing:

“Citizenfour” director-producer Laura Poitras is teaming with AJ Schnack and Charlotte Cook to launch Field of Vision, a documentary unit that will commission and create 40 to 50 episodic and short-form nonfiction films each year.

Field of Vision was developed in collaboration with The Intercept and First Look Media. The Intercept, launched in 2014 by Glenn Greenwald, Poitras and Jeremy Scahill, is a website “dedicated to producing fearless, adversarial journalism.”

Clinton has been in government forever, and has promised more of the same. But I kinda half believe that, like a thousand monkeys typing on a keyboard…or is it a stopped clock? Trump might offer progressives and old school conservatives the most progress/conservation. He’s more of a free agent…or a loose cannon, than the others….but at some point, he might be worth the risk, to those that unlike the jewellery rattling one percenters…have little to lose.

I believe the majority of polls indicate Bernie Saunders (claims to be a socialist, but is really the equivalent of an old school liberal, especially in comparison to extreme rightwinger, Hillary) is the leading democratic candidate, just as polls indicate Trumpelstiltskin to be the leading r-con candidate.

That said, everything about Clinton indicates she, like her husband and spawn, are nothing but neocons for Wall Street (oops, they prefer to be called neolibs, whoopi-do-da!).

Richard Trumka, that simpleton who continues to claim he is pro-union, has been quite vocal in his support for either Hillary Clinton or Delaware Joe Biden (or is that “du Pont” Joe Biden, given the disastrous and revolting remarks made by his now deceased son in support of a member of the du Pont family and his non-jail term, after being convicted of baby-raping!

Now, the last thing a real democrat should want or desire in the Oval Office is a neocon Hillary, Joey, or r-con, final opportunity to vote the closest thing to a real live socialist, Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party.

Next time around, there may not be anyone running from the Green Party, and where would that leave us?

The way socialism is understood today, practically anyone can claim to be a socialist. The socialist parties of Europe are establishment parties. All you have to advocate is the implementation of some basic social services, higher taxes for the rich, and that’s about it. That’s not an alternative economic system. It’s more like a straitjacket for capitalism. It leaves the dictatorial structure of corporations intact. It’s only a matter of time before they use their power to undo the social gains.

In fairness, I think Bernie Sanders does plan to subsidize worker-owned cooperatives, which is a good step towards post-capitalism.

This half-hearted bluster serves no purpose. Currently, the greater population in Iran is people between the ages of 18 to 35 years of age. A young population of savvy, well educated, worldy-wise people. Just a few short years ago, millions of them, as part of the “Green Movement” demonstrated in the streets of Iran under the banner of freedom and Democracy. At the same time, the theocracy headed by an aging and dwindling in number group of clerics is diminishing. It is unwise to view Iran through the prism of militant theocracy as it ignores the masses of Iranian people who are currently hard at work setting the foundation pinions of the Democratic state in which they hope to revolutionize the lives of all their people. THEY do not want war. They WANT peace and Democracy. It is far wiser to give the people themselves time to move their Democratic agenda forward. Their’s is an intellectual battle fought within their country for a system that will bring their people into a more enlightened and participatory condition leading to inclusion as a Democratic entity in the region. None of this works against Israel. It does work against a handful of Israeli politicians who find it perennially useful to stir up hate and suspicion when they find it personally and politically useful. Their rigid, self interest works against both the Iranian reality of true theocratic emancipation and the growing peace movement in Israel. When the news of this accord hit the streets of Iran, young people poured out into them and shouted with joy! Obama is a realist who firmly believes the Iranian people have peace and Democracy in their hearts and minds.

CNN)Of the 4 million Syrian refugees who have fled attacks by their government and ISIS, the United States has taken in 0.03% of them.

…Hillary Clinton called on the United Nations Wednesday to press countries to take in Syrian refugees, pointing to this month’s General Assembly as a prime opportunity for action.

So potential president Clinton…makes the bold move to call on other countries to take in more refugees…but has nothing to say about what the US should do? Which reminds me, have you heard about the Hungarian camera woman?

At least Fox camera operators don’t trip and kick refugees do they?

Hungary doesn’t yet have anything like Donald Trump’s hundred foot wall around the country to keep out the rapists, but here’s Hungary’s answer to Fox news, tripping and kicking refugees:

“A camera operator for a Hungarian nationalist television channel closely linked to the country’s far-right Jobbik party has been filmed kicking two refugee children and tripping up a man at the border hotspot of R?szke on Tuesday.

Petra László of N1TV was filming a group of refugees running away from police officers, when a man carrying a child in his arms ran in front of her. László stuck her leg out in front of the man, causing him to fall on the child he was carrying. He turned back and remonstrated with László, who continued filming.
”

Remember when it was still politically correct to send back refugees to their deaths? There was the example of the MS St Louis, after Cuba retroactively cancelled their permission to travel (remember these were the pre Castro good old days) the Trumps of the day in America put up the “No Jews allowed” sign (in the form of warships sent to intercept them) and the refugees were returned to the warm welcome of Auschwitz.

I guess this camerawoman thinks she’s doing her part to save the white race again by hitting children fleeing a war zone.

Which gets us back to Clinton:

Clinton – “I obviously want the United States to do our part.”

Part? Part of what? You’ve got Hungarian nationalist camera women kicking refugees on the one hand and the leading Republican in America is busy talking about hundred foot border walls (similar to those in the occupied territories in Palestine presumably).

So there’s nothing “obvious” about it. What would Clinton do? Does anyone know?

Hungary is the land of Hungarians.Why should their society be upended by paying for Western Europes,Israels and US depredations which have sent the ME ablaze?The Israelis have walls,and shoot those who trespass,and they won’t let any refugees in,Yahoo proudly claims.
The Hungarians are fall guys for American clowns to point their fickle fingers at.
As an American i sympathize with them,as the same thing is happening here,but its CA and Mexicans,all victims of our masters trade steals,and why should Americans pay in this oligarchy of criminals?

Here is an idea, Hungary, just as the polish, were part of the coalition of the willing which caused a fair share of the displacement or people from that very region. How about we keep that in mind. So yeahnothing wrong about the people that bombed for humanity taking responsibility for the outcome.

they should pay because they voted for these government? because they keep voting? when you don’t understand or think you understand (and in fact, you don’t), please abstain! don’t vote!
I think the Americans should abstain from voting in the next election! massively abstain!
to show that they don’t want to play this game anymore!

Or maybe instead of abstaining, American voters could do an even more radical thing and elect the first third party president since Lincoln. Jill Stein of the Green Party would be someone who would do her best to try and reverse the decades of insane US foreign policy.

the starting point of all corrupt and ziomasonsatanist is one of distrust against the gullible domestic population of the usa and abroad, except when they break the rule of law, as with having personal server to run the public office of the jUew.S.A, they do not want anyone to hold the line for them not event the rule of law gets to be applied on them for accountability. How far has corrupt hillary bent the rules in public view without impunity even when supposedly defending a woman who was raped and called it the “”abortion of justice”” or something to that effect, when she found no dna evidence by her hired so call experts. The rule of law gets to be waived when the perpetrators are usa-presidents and (ex) first ladies and now I would say even drag queens posing as women in more recent times. But the usa wants all the public office and workers of the usa government to have their own servers and using their own person email servers to handle any public office. Is this democracy? is engaging in deliberately having a personal server to run an official usa-public office? No, not really it is worst than disgusting recklessness/lawlessness, and we can agree on that!

If you are part of creating and sponsoring ISIS, FUNDING ISIS and FOUNDING ISIS you are not just part of a terrorist organization but the very terrorist you claim to persue, plain and simple socrates. Which the usa created funded ISIS and that is no secret any longer and these they call helping the world when it is not. [isis=the leader of isis is a mossad agent=founded by usa-cia= funded by usa=created by usa]

In the absence of accountability, the usa-public office holders prefer to have the line of the constitutional statutes of the rule of law and international law unhold and without rein towards them. Those have democracy without the constitutional statutes of the rule of law, these have the constitutional statutes of the rule of law without democracy, both of which are of no avail and lack what is right. Disgusting. -Alejandro Grace Ararat.

And because the corrupt calls manipulation and deceit “” a commitment to dimplomacy” these have shown and proven their commitment to chaos out of (corrupt) order diplomacy rather, and on the same sentence these add that the world will more likely join their “Chaos out of order” regime while their kosher bosses run it overtly and covertly now.
.
What I’m not for is telling a terrorist group much less the domestic popoulation that we are collecting it (to spy on all just like kosher stalinism, kosher bolchevism, kosher marxisim, kosher hitlerianism did ) all to know it all because the fact is the usa governance and their entire law enforcement never told the domestic population that they were being spied upon via stingrays and internet backdoors and frontdoors subverting the constitutional STATUES of the rule of law, for tell me cherry public office echelon, since when executive orders are above the Constitutional STATUTES of the rule of law? – Alejandro Grace Ararat.

But the usa governance and the nsa claim they do not know which records they collected while in the same sentence admiting they are and have collected all internet communications to know it all. All the cell phones and computers are compromise including hotel telephone systems, even hospital equipment has backdoors and front doors remotely.

the manipulation is at the order of the day with the wicked ziomasonsatanist usa-governance. Disgusting.

p.s.As Mr Glen Greenwald said: Two words that did not come out of Clinton’s mouth during the entire event: non-jewish“Palestinians” (do they exist?) and “Libya” (that glorious war she supported that was going to be the inspiring template for future “humanitarian interventions” before it predictably destroyed that whole country).

Remember, it was the war hawks claim that Saddam did not conform to the deal he had with the UN – they claimed he did not disclose all his weapons, but in fact it was his list that he gave to the UN that was used by the U.S. military to find all of Iraq’s weapons. The list wasn’t good enough before the invasion, but it was perfectly good enough after the invasion.

Iran, having no doubt aware of how Washington can twist facts, and hype fear, are probably treating the deal as the best way to lift sanctions, but they would be foolish to think this is a peace dividend.

Absolutely spot-on assessment of the positions taken by the self-anointed, future head of the corporate/militaristic political class in America.

No longer are covert, “we know better than you” warmongering efforts enough (Iran-Contra, et al) – it is now completely, blatantly the standing policy of the ‘greatest nation on Earth’ to proactively push for war as the means and the method of foreign policy meant only to expand imperialist aggression and the basis for our nations (and increasingly, the worlds) economic engine de jour.

Simply out of curiosity Glenn, have any idea why some stories posted by The Intercept choose to close comments like the one just posted Peter Maass?

Is it an author by author decision? Just curious why some stories appear not to permit comments. Or is it just a technical “delay” thing after posting a piece and in a few minutes the comments will be available?

Well it appeared from the article to be a case of reciprocal seduction. Which in all other situations is the best kind. But when it’s two sets of propagandists salaciously and cheaply licking each other’s private parts to help catapult their mutual propaganda I find it both unseemly and a story without any “good guys”.

Sometimes really disturbing to me how “human” and stupid are our purported “intelligence” agencies. I guess I shouldn’t be, they appear to have a nearly uninterrupted history of fuck-ups punctuated by the rare success that is more luck than anything. Those guys are simply spies and killers for empire as far as I’m concerned and a threat to democracy and human rights.

I don’t know what it is, but I’m almost certain that it is not that. I wrote to David Dayen when his article comments had been closed from the outset. He wrote back saying he had no idea why that was; nothing to do with him or any choice that he had made.

Thanks Kitt. Seemed a little odd that any Intercept journalist would not open or shut down comments except on some time limit. That’s why I was confused. Be interested to find out why it is happening though since you are following up on it. Thanks.

Just left a comment so the problem, whatever it was, seems to be fixed now.

I wonder if TI is doing some adjustments to the commenting software lately. Just now I noticed that clicking on the comment box at top isnt taking me directly to the comment box at the bottom of the article. There have been a few other quirks of late as well.

Maybe, but I don’t think Russia would play ball, or take kindly to America attacking Iran. And I don’t think it will be easy, or possible, for America to unilaterally hold together or re-impose a sanctions regime under the agreement without a verifiable basis for doing so. At least not on their own say so as the US won’t be a part of the on-the-ground inspections regime (is my understanding). Which was a smart move for the Iranians and other P5 members because I don’t think anybody but UK would trust America not to cook the evidence of any “prospective alleged” violations at this point in America’s history.

It is hard to claim that Hillary supports the Iran nuclear accord, as she only seems to have come around to this support once the accord was a done deal. She seems to have calculated the most convenient position to claim momentarily while taking another reading on where the wind might blow next.

Nothing surprising here – Hillary Clinton has never once opposed an American war and has in general been an enthusiastic imperialist. A vote for Hillary is a vote for more war, violence, death, and destructon in the world, without a doubt little of which is actually necessary to protect the American public.

There is no doubt that a President Hillary Clinton will start a new war somewhere to prove her militarist street creds in the same way that Obama did when he tried to keep large number of troops in Iraq and escalating Afghanistan. My fear is that she will tangle with too big a foe such as Russia/China who can fight back, and who seem to have the will to fight back. My suggestion to her would be to invade Puerto Rico because you know, freedom. Claim world domination for the neocons, and let everybody else go on peacefully with their business.

These are the stories, and/but going back further, that I keep pointing out are ignored, while the so-called news outlets focus on the email story. It’s like the fauxrage for IRS or Benghazi, while President Obama had/has the NSA run roughshod over our Constitution. (Focus, people.)

If most Democrats, in this 21st century of discontent, know the kinds of policies this woman would initiate, support, and endorse, they should/might run for the hills. Right into the arms of Senator Bernie – or Mr O’Malley, both of whom get little coverage. I watch Thom Hartmann, so there is some, other than a moment of wonder on the other channels. Christ, I am frustrated.

Does anyone know if Clinton has any plans to change….anything? If she were president, how would US policy change? Why are her supporters excited about her? To answer my own question, the main thing that comes to mind is that she ticks off the box allowing the US to join the nations of the world that have elected a woman. But any woman will do. That doesn’t necessitate anything particular about Clinton.

So in a magical world that responded to popular will, She’d be a strange choice. How old is she? Sixty seven? Is it finally her turn, after waiting in the “elect me president” queue for several election cycles, she’s now first in line, assuming seventy two year old Biden doesn’t but in front of her.

….I’d like to entertain the hope that septuagenarian Bernie Sanders could shake up the old guard of the Democratic party, but the establishment, (which by extrapolation must be in their eighties and nineties…perhaps they’ve transferred their consciousnesses into jars?)…usually disinvites such rude people as Sanders from debates, denies them the billions of dollars of advertising money required to create the public perception that their opponents are non-citizen serial killers bent on making abortions mandatory for every birth.

But the Democratic party, unlike Labour in the UK, isn’t trying to do anything too ambitious. Labour is coming to terms with the Illegal Iraq war, with immigration, refugees, social inequity. That’s why they need someone like Corbyn. If the Democrats were on a similar track, then Sanders will go all the way. But if not, all the American Democrats need worry about is beating the buffoons in the Republican party. So Clinton may be the ticket.

Listen, Teddy Roosevelt was the first global policing president. Unsuprisingly he was listed as “elected Republican during the Progressive era”. That’s Brookings. How much real progress have we traded up in exchange for Keynsian war economics? I would say we are always one national emergency away from a dictatorship with concern to West Point policies who are automatic for military control not national sovereignty.

I will say this military dictatorships suck at economic progress because they are usually all about comprehensive dominance as power vs. economic power. How many guns can you buy with no money in the bank. If we keep letting military strong men shot call for us as an economic superpower, we won’t stay one. At some point we need to lay down the guns and go tend to the farms or the soldiers won’t have anything to eat. If you think if won’t happen to us, you’re arrogant and stupid. IF you do what you’ve always done, you get what you’ve always gotten.

Anyone up for a “domestic” president? Someone who can turn down the global “hot” in the hot wars, reorganize the CIA’s hedge fund portfolios and VC firms to pay down our debts to China, get some defense OpSec on the civilian government networks instead of behaving like the only people worth protecting are the military operations elite and their corporate partners? Anyone up for closing some bases? Anyone for the US military coming to pick up their trash they delegated to local police departments so police can agitate a national security conflict at home for them for a power grab? Anyone?

And the above is the #1 (among several biggies) why I will never cast my vote for Hillary Clinton for President. She is GOP-“lite” on almost every meaningful “big picture” issue facing America and the world. She isn’t a solution or step in the right direction or even much in the way of the “lesser of evils”. She is the same “evil” (although that is not the best way to describe it).

One of my few knocks on Sen. Sanders (and no candidate will ever be perfect) is the same one Chris Hedges had in his most recent piece:

Until Sen. Sanders articulates that part of our “class”-economic inequality-racism problems are a function of our militarism and desire for empire, it will be very difficult if not impossible to fix things in the domestic arena. You can’t have it both ways. And he needs to be clear about that. America should have a humanitarian role in the world, and yes one that can, if done appropriately, be facilitated by its military under strict narrow circumstances.

But America’s leadership’s 60+ year military interventionism to maintain its “interests” (balance of power or economic or oil or whatever) is immoral, unsustainable, and makes domestic priorities largely impossible to achieve (from energy independence, climate change, economic inequality to civil rights et al which are all related).

There are four things America(ns) are addicted to that must stop if we are ever to live up to our ideals and actually lead (not dominate or dictate) the world by example with humility and actual moral authority. We must end our addictions to: power/cultural exceptionalism, a militaristic mindset, foreign economic exploitation and oil.

No peoples or nation that sees the world, and attempts to influence or control it, in the way America’s leaders see the world has ever survived–from Rome to England. They all fall. And they all fall/fail for very similar reasons.

Until human beings start seeing themselves first and foremost as human beings with shared interests, as opposed to members of nation states who by circumstance of birth are in competition with others of a different birth circumstance, then the human species and “civilization” likely will not survive. Technological advancement is not going to save mankind or the planet. Only an evolution in our social and economic “way of life” will. And it will have to be a way of life built on cooperation, sharing and meeting of basic needs, clean energy revolution and a moving away from unnecessary materialism-consumption.

Hillary’s endorsement of Obama’s Iran nuclear agreement is a fine example of what it takes to get Hillary Clinton to eschew her innate hawkishness: you have to completely box her in and give her no alternative. Then, and ONLY then, will she go the non-hawkish route, and she’ll only do so grudgingly, as she made clear at Brookings. In this case it was Bernie Sanders doing the boxing in. Opposing the Iran deal would have handed multiple Democratic state primaries to Sanders. Hillary couldn’t afford that.

And given that what you write is true – this woman who previously denounced even the **idea** of diplomatic engagement with Iran as “dangerous, and frankly naive” is only now supporting a completed accord for the reason of running for office – what other policy positions has Hillary taken that seem a stretch, and that we might conclude are for the same purpose?

How much should any of us vote for someone who appears broadly craven and dishonezt, no matter whether we like what she said, or not? Can even Hillary’s supporters on the basis of policy trust her?

If you look back at US interventionism in the last 50 years or so, and you assume we’re not looking at a series of accidental blunders, what Clinton is saying here can only be interpreted as projection.

“Clinton: Iran, like ISIS, benefits from chaos and strife.” So, she’s pro-Iran and ISIS? Because that’s what she’s promising.

I think there’s a good chance that if she wins the nomination she’ll lose the election. This goes even if it’s against one of the GOP hopefuls that even the conservatives are lukewarm about. The visceral loathing they feel for her combined with the huge wave of apathy that will overtake the voters on the left if she gets the nod will combine and probably result in a Republican president. If she runs against Trump he’ll probably win in a landslide. The world’s in for some rough times either way. At least Trump would give us someone to laugh at on the journey to hell, not that it would help much.